Category: Mayoral influence

Board Members Silent on Facilities Plan, School Closings

Board of Education Action Meeting: January 29, 2026

by Lisa Haver

Board Member Crystal Cubbage the only Board Member visible and present during public testimony of APPS Member Kristin Luebbert. (Photo: Lisa Haver)

The students showed up. So did the parents, teachers, principals, and community members who packed the auditorium at 440. Who didn’t show up? Most of the members of the Board of Education. Only President Reginald Streater and Vice-president Sarah-Ashley Andrews attended in person. Board Members Wanda Novales, Whitney Jones and Joan Stern were absent. Joyce Wilkerson, Crystal Cubbage and Chou-Wing Lam could be seen intermittently on the screen but were not fully present even virtually; Lam was visible for less than 15 minutes throughout.. Cheryl Harper never appeared; her voice could be heard occasionally. Board of Education Policy 006.1, Meetings, clearly states that members may attend remotely if they “participate in the entire meeting”. Board members “must be visible on the screen”; if they step away “they must notify the Board’s Chief of Staff or their designee.” The board violated all of these provisions. The board did not have a quorum as only the two members in the auditorium were fully present. The board must re-vote on all of the action items at a subsequent meeting. The board’s disrespect for the public, especially after the release of a potentially devastating facilities plan, is unacceptable. 

Continue to read about January 29, 2026 Action Meeting here.


Board Rigs Meeting for Special Interests

Board of Education Action Meeting: May 29, 2025

by Lisa Haver

Legal Notice on page B2 in May 28,2025 Philadelphia Inquirer

In this era of authoritarianism, the will of the people is too often subverted to the will of the wealthy and powerful. Despite polls that show a majority of Americans do not support the privatization of public schools, and the overwhelming defeat of voucher proposal referenda in several states, politicians have found a way to overrule the voters and impose anti-public school measures. And despite the growing evidence that an increasing number of the city’s parents are rejecting charter schools, including under–enrollment at over half of the city’s charters, Philadelphia’s Board of Education voted to approve a new application, one they had previously voted to deny. Their convoluted and dishonest justifications served only to underscore how much they had betrayed their constituents for the benefit of the politically connected special interests. That reason, among others, is why APPS members called on Mayor Cherelle Parker to ask for the resignations of the members of the board. 

Continue reading here.

President Streater, Tear Down This Wall!

Board of Education Action Meeting: November 21, 2024

by Lisa Haver

Community members protest Board’s vote on Sixers arena TIF (Photo: Lisa Haver)

Parents, students, educators and community members came to November’s board meeting to be heard on many issues: student censorship, funding to save extra-curricular activities, school closings, renewal of substandard charter schools, restoring school librarians, and the board’s vote on tax breaks for developers of the proposed arena at Chinatown’s door. They hoped to find a board that would be open to their concerns and respond to them. They found, instead, a board that had built a wall around itself, ramped up security measures, and attempted to intimidate public speakers. Outside the auditorium they encountered a table for people to sign in and be issued an identification sticker to be worn during the meeting. Inside had been erected a barrier between the audience and the board, with security staff positioned on both sides of public speakers. Board members now enter and exit through a door on their side of the barrier. There was no opportunity for any contact between board members and their constituents. All of this was an apparent reaction by the board to the protest at the October meeting, during which the board left the meeting and re-convened in a locked room. The board’s bunker-like mentality violates its own Guardrail 2: “Every parent and guardian will be welcomed and encouraged to be partners in their child’s school community.”

Continue reading about the November board meeting here.

Board Rejects New Charter Application

Board of Education Action Meeting: February 29, 2024
Members of the Caucus of Working Educators of the PFT present their petition for the end of the punitive 3-5-7-9 absence policy to the Board of Education (Photo by Lisa Haver)

by Lisa Haver

In a 6-3 vote, the Board of Education voted to deny Global Leadership Academy’s application for a charter high school. Board members cited numerous reasons for their votes, including the substandard proposed curriculum and the questionable affiliations with charter management organizations and legal firms. Two board members cited plummeting academic scores at GLA’s Renaissance charter, Huey Elementary. President Reginald Streater cited GLA’s failure to remedy an issue that the board cited in its previous denial–the organization’s claims that it was GLA but not really part of GLA.  As APPS’ Deb Grill said in her report about GLA CEO Naomi Johnson-Booker’s claim of non-affiliation: “That might be true if one doesn’t count the name, the academic model, the relationship with business consultants Charter Choices, and her position as CEO of GLACS.”  Grill, in her testimony, reminded the board that over half of the city’s charter schools are under-enrolled, thus there is no need for any new charter school.

The consideration of even one application for a new charter costs the district dearly in time and money. Two hearings preceded this decision. The Charter School Office must conduct an in-depth evaluation of the application and review hundreds of pages of attachments. CSO Director Peng Chao gives presentations to the board at several points in the 6-month process. At this meeting, Chao gave another extensive presentation on the GLA application, followed by a lengthy question-and -answer session from the board. In addition, the board’s deliberations just before the vote took over half an hour, and fourteen of the thirty approved speakers addressed this one topic. Three elected officials spoke in support of the GLA application.

Continue reading